Spec URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/libowfat-0.27-1/libowfat.spec SRPM URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/libowfat-0.27-1/libowfat-0.27-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: his library is a reimplementation of libdjb, which means that it provides Daniel Bernstein's interfaces (with some extensions). It contains wrappers around memory allocation, buffered I/O, routines for formatting and scanning, a full DNS resolver, several socket routines, wrappers for socket functions, mkfifo, opendir, wait, and an abstraction around errno. It also includes wrappers for Unix signal functions and a layer of mmap and sendfile. The library is available for use with the diet libc.
New upstream release SPEC: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/libowfat-0.28/libowfat.spec SRPM: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/libowfat-0.28/libowfat-0.28-1.fc10.src.rpm
I reviewed this package. Here are my notes: * static libraries are usually not desired in Fedora. But in this case, upstream only provides a static library and hence we can go with their choice. But then the devel package should have Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release} and whenever a package BR's this one, it should BR libowfat-static instead of libowfat-devel * Requires: dietlibc-devel (the top one) is not required. * This package installs files in /usr/lib64/dietlibc/include/libowfat/ but the dietlibc-devel package has its files installed in /usr/lib/dietlibc/include/ regardless of the architecture. So you need to replace the occurences of %{_libdir} with %{_prefix}/lib in the SPEC file. - The source files don't have a license in their headers, but the README file explicitly says: libowfat is a library of general purpose APIs extracted from Dan Bernstein's software, reimplemented and covered by the GNU General Public License Version 2 (no later versions). so license as GPLv2 is okay. * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) * Please use %{name}.a instead of libowfat.a in the %files section for macro consistency. * Fedora specific compilation flags are not honored. Please fix this. * Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported, this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment. ? Is there any program which we can use to see libowfat in action?
One more thing: ! Since we only produce a -devel package, I think its summary should be the same as the main summary.
>I reviewed this package. Thank you >But then the devel package should have > Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release} >and whenever a package BR's this one, it should BR libowfat-static instead of >libowfat-devel Done >* Requires: dietlibc-devel (the top one) is not required. Done >So you need to replace the occurences of >%{_libdir} with %{_prefix}/lib in the SPEC file. Done >* We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) Ooops, done >* Please use %{name}.a instead of libowfat.a in the %files section for macro >consistency. Oops, I did it again. Done >* Fedora specific compilation flags are not honored. Please fix this. Done >* Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported, >this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment. Done >? Is there any program which we can use to see libowfat in action? I need libowfat for a commercial application. http://erdgeist.org/arts/software/opentracker/ http://www.mcmilk.de/wiki/Squidwall are free and opensource application which need libowfat. (perhaps i will build opentracker) >! Since we only produce a -devel package, I think its summary should be the >same as the main summary. Done SPEC: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/libowfat-0.28/libowfat.spec SRPM: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/libowfat-0.28/libowfat-0.28-2.fc10.src.rpm
Thanks. Package builds fine in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1250306 It is good to go now ------------------------------------------- This package (libowfat) is APPROVED by oget -------------------------------------------
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libowfat Short Description: Reimplementation of libdjb Owners: cassmodiah Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC:
cvs done.
in repo
In private mail with Simon, he is happy for others to maintain libowfat in epel, but he has no interest in doing so himself at this time. As noted above, libowfat is needed for opentracker. I'm not planning on building libowfat against dietlibc in epel, but against glibc, as epel has no dietlibc. Please branch EL-5 from devel if you can. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libowfat New Branches: EL-5 Owners: mdomsch
Generally we'd like to see an ack in the ticket instead of having such comments be in private email where we can't see them, but I've no reason to doubt you. CVS done.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libowfat New Branches: epel7 Owners: cicku
Git done (by process-git-requests).